rpfc

Then I guess he was able to manage it well enough to help Collingwood win a flag. Dawes would be a better contested marker than Fitzpatrick. They are both shaded by Clark, and I believe Hogan, but it is Dawes' frame that I see as very fortunate to have next to The Franchise (Hogan) while he is in his first few years. And of Dawes and Fitzpatrick, one is far more proven than the other. I don't see it happening. I don't think Fitz can do what I would be asking Dawes to do.

No, you would be doing that. I thought you were giving a self-appraisal.

That is a good point - we did give up a bit to get him. The point that it was not Grundy is also a good point.

Are you speaking from personal experience?

Dawes broke a knuckle in 2011 and missed 6 games. He played 61 out of a possible 76 in his last three years at Collingwood. Are you sure you are not recalling the knuckle injury in 2011? And would we have a leadership group if it was defined by form and injury? BTW, Fitzpatrick can't play Dawes' role. He is slight, far from proven, and does not have the ability to assert himself on the field.

Excuse me?

The point was made at the time - "they were the best of bad options." As for any larger debate about what Neeld brought - this isn't a Marvel comic - he and his FD brought many good things during his failed tenure.

One thing I would like to see is a way of picking up 'undrafted' players after all drafts are over. This would be after the Rookie List is scrapped, so in a couple of years, and what would happen is that a club would leave the last two positions open after the National and Pre-Season Drafts and would have give fortnight contracts to players to train with the team, at the end of which you would choose two from then or from other teams 'train-ons.' Or you could leave a position open for later in the pre-season in case of injuries etc. The player is simply signed and agrees to a contract acceptable to them. If you are a kid you get through the nat draft (where there is a automatic 2 year contracts for those in their first year nominated), and through the PSD (where you can name your own terms), you can then go and accept a 'train-on' contract with your choice of team and accept a contract that is acceptable to you. I think this is one of the next steps, we have given quite a bit of power to delisted players and 10 year players and fringe players who have been at a club for 8 years, I think it is time to give some power to the speculative teenager (and to the recruitment staff that wants to pick the right player and not waste anyone's time...).

Didn't reality do that?

The worth of that trade won't be known for a few years. He may be right...

Too soon guys...

Yeah, we would get better results with the Alt room they have at AAMI. Any benefit would be pyschological; giving a confidence boost to the malleable egos of footy players.

Yes, who the hell would tell a player what a loud 10% of the supporter base was thinking and an infinitesimal percentage was posting on a supporter forum about them? Why?

You are talking out both sides of your mouth here. For months you were saying everything was fine and that the players were frustrated about not bringing their training 'form' into games and you admit that it may have been a company line that you took at face value. But now you also contend that the players told you things you couldn't repeat - are you intimating they took you in their confidence about how bad things had become under Neeld? My question is not why you didn't allude to that on here but rather - why did you argue the exact opposite - that all was well? I think you simply get platitudes from the players that any fan would get and you should have learned from the facade that was put up by the players infront of you last year, that you repeated on here.

I 'shot him down'? I gave information, the source of which I will not disclose but am very comfortable with, and made a larger point about the Rookie List. S-home then said that he had talked to Stark and had only divulged he was frustrated with his injuries - as if that was the end of it. Again, players are not going to divulge the same information to fans at training that they would to their own family and friends. If s-home wants to continue to question me on this he absolutely can, but the inference that he knows what is going on because he talks to the plaeyrs at training would be laughable if it wasn't for the disaster that 2013 was that occurred while s-home contended vociferiously that 'he spoke to the players' and all was well, and that everyone was just frustrated 'that they didn't take their training form out into games.' In a weeks time we are going to get 4 more rookies and I want the MFC to treat them like the other 40 players on the list. You can take this as warning or myth but know that I feel so strongly about this and am so sure of the information that I will be emailing the club prior to the Rookie Draft.

I learn from bitter experience. And when Webjet and Opel came on board we were about to start the 2012 season. They were a beacon in the night. I think we will finish it here, just let people enjoy the stability attained.

With respect to Ryan, we would not care if Pick 9 is ready to go, we will pick who we think will become the better player down the track because that is the point of all this.

Everyone over 25.

You admonished me for not providing the numbers for both companies. I provide the numbers for both companies, go back 3 years for both, and you are having a go at me for providing the numbers. And how is this frothing: You must see me as a passionless automaton if that is frothing. The point is they are on a sounder financial footing than any major sponsor we have had for a while and that is why Jackson mentioned the point of fact that they are in the ASX200. And why I am more comfortable with them than with EnergyWatch, Opel, and Webjet. According to their respective annual reports - AHG made a net profit after tax 10 times that of Webjet. How is that not comforting to you? And how can you sit there and judge our relief so sardonically?

I bothered to bring it up to highlight that Rookies get treated differently to those on the Primary List and it happened at the MFC and I was not happy about it, I have bit my tongue for months but thought I would share my views as we were discussing the Rookie List with regard to Jetta. I hadn't wanted to jeopardise any chances that Stark had to retain his spot, should any poor soul at the club read this site. I gave 'some level of detail' when I said the source is impeccable.

The inference that he is a supporter at training and will get equivalent information as a 'good source,' and if you trust me you will take it as impeccable, is ridiculous.

http://hfgapps.hubb.com/asxtools/Charts.aspx?asxCode=AHE&compare=comp_index&indicies=0&pma1=0&pma2=0&volumeInd=9&vma=0&TimeFrame=M3 http://hfgapps.hubb.com/asxtools/Charts.aspx?asxCode=WEB&compare=comp_index&indicies=0&pma1=0&pma2=0&volumeInd=9&vma=0&TimeFrame=M3 3 year trends. Do you want to be on the one going up or the one going down? And leave the patronisation to those who can pull it off...

Of course we can respectfully discuss the past. We can discuss the failures of the past few years without being Kings of Hindsight. My god man, what do you do when things turn to shite? You find out what went wrong and try to improve. It's like the discussion about Schwab and the previous Board - you can respectfully discuss and dissect the failures. And depsite "how well they trained" the failures of man-management under Neeld went beyond 'too much running.' Others claimed knowledge of Frawley being unhappy, I know that Rookies were not treated the same as those on the Primary List (and another level again when one of the 'more important players' were involved) - surely the fact that what you reported on here under Neeld being completely torn apart by reality has given you food for thought?

The failure of Schwab is his record. The failure of the Board was to continue to employ him. A failed hiring or re-hiring is on the employer, not the employee. That's my very small point. And, as Stynes said in his book, the Board should have removed both in 2011. But they had an option for one more year of Schwab and they chose to trigger the option. That is an understandable mistake, the less understandable one was the three year contract given in 2012 when it would have been prudent to move on then and there.

What about if your club had a sponsor that dissolved after one Facebook scandal, another that has pulled out of the country entirely, and one that has lost nearly half it's value on the ASX in the past four months?